Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Micro Foundation of Organizational Learning: Group Learning

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Organizational Learning

Abstract

Cisco Systems, Inc. successfully acquired many software firms with 50–100 employees (Wysocki, 1997). Cisco paid a premium for the firms—on the order of two million dollars per employee. Why is Cisco paying so much for these firms? According to Wysocki

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aldag, R. J., & Fuller, S. R. (1993). Beyond fiasco: A reappraisal of the groupthink phenomenon and a new model of group decision processes. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 533–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ancona, D. G., & Nadler, D. A. (1989). Top hats and executive tales: Designing the senior team. Sloan Management Review, 31(1), 19–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L., Gruenfeld, D., & Naquin, C. (2001). Group learning in organizations. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Advances in theory and research (pp. 369–411). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L., Insko, C. A., Yovetich, N., & Romero, A. A. (1995). Group learning curves: The effects of turnover and task complexity on group performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 512–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L., & McGrath, J. E. (1993). Group processes in organizations: Continuity and change. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8, 333–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L., Seabright, M. A., & Dyer, L. (1986). Individual versus group use of base-rate and individuating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 65–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. (1992). On organizational learning. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., & Schon, P. (1978). Organizational learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10(summer special issue), 107–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettenhausen, K. L. (1991). Five years of groups research: What we have learned and what needs to be addressed. Journal of Management, 17, 345–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunderson, J. S., & Boumgarden, P. (2010). Structure and learning in self-managed teams: Why “bureaucratic” teams can be better learners. Organization Science, 21(3), 609–624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2003). Management team learning orientation and business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 552–560.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnstein, E., & Vinokur, A. (1977). Persuasive argumentation and social comparison as determinants of attitude polarization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 315–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, D. (1973). Determinants of scientific progress: The case of research on the risky shift. American Psychologist, 28, 222–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, N. K., & Stephenson, G. M. (1989). Group remembering. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed., pp. 357–391). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review, 80, 97–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. H. (1980). Group decision and procedural justice. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Progress in social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 157–229). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. H. (1982). Social interaction as a combinatorial process in group decision. In H. Brandstätter, J. H. Davis, & G. Stocker-Kreichgauer (Eds.), Group decision making (pp. 27–58). London: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R. M. (1988). Rational choice in an uncertain world. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Joonovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Church, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 32–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. W. (2010). Social conflict: The emergence and consequences of struggle and negotiation. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindsey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 983–1023). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dearborn, D. C., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Selective perception: A note on the departmental identification of executives. Sociometry, 21, 140–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dion, K. L., Baron, R. S., & Miller, N. (1970). Why do groups make riskier decisions than individuals? Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 305–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3, 179–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Chaiken, S. (1978). Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 424–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. C., Dillon, J. R., & Rolloff, K. (2007). Three perspectives on team learning: Outcome improvement, task mastery and group process. Academy of Management Annals, 1, 269–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1986). Judging probable cause. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 3–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn, H. J., Hogarth, R. M., & Klempner, E. (1977). Quality of group judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 158–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Tabrizi, B. N. (1995). Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 84–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang, C. (2011). Organizational learning as credit assignment: A model and two experiments. Organization Science. Published online before print, December 2, 2011, doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1993). The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 959–974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1997). Proper analysis of the accuracy of group judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 149–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, P. S., & Leyden, D. P. (1991). Familiarity and group productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 578–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruenfeld, D. H. (1995a). Divergent thinking, accountability, and integrative complexity: Public versus private reactions to majority and minority status (Unpublished manuscript). Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruenfeld, D. H. (1995b). Status, ideology and integrative complexity on the U.S. Supreme Court: Rethinking the politics of political decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 5–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruenfeld, D. H., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1993). Sociocognition in work groups: The evolution of group integrative complexity and its relation to task performance. Small Group Research, 24, 383–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruenfeld, D., Martorana, P. V., & Fan, E. T. (2000). What do groups learn from their worldliest members? Direct and indirect influence in dynamic teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 60–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guetzkow, H., & Simon, H. A. (1955). The impact of certain communication nets upon organization and performance in task-oriented groups. Management Science, 1, 233–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R. (1990). Introduction: Work teams in organizations: An orienting framework. In J. R. Hackman (Ed.), Groups that work (and those that don’t). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., Cho, T. S., & Chen, M. (1996). The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms’ competitive moves. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 659–684.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartwick, J., Sheppard, B. L., & Davis, J. H. (1982). Group remembering: Research and implications. In R. A. Guzzo (Ed.), Improving group decision making in organizations: Approaches from theory and research (pp. 41–72). London: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, R. A. (1995). Improving group judgment accuracy: Information sharing and determining the best member. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 190–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, R. A., Strickland, O. J., Yorges, S. L., & Ladd, D. (1996). Helping groups determine their most accurate member: The role of outcome feedback. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1153–1170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, G. W. (1982). Group versus individual performance: Are N  +  1 heads better than one? Psychological Bulletin, 91, 517–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinsz, V. B. (1990). Cognitive and consensus processes in group recognition memory performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 705–718.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The emerging conception of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 43–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoerr, J. (1989, July 10). The payoff from teamwork: The gains in quality are substantial—so why isn’t it spreading faster? Business Week, pp. 56–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Sego, D. J., Hedlund, J., Major, D. A., & Philips, J. (1995). Multilevel theory of team decision making: Decision performance in teams incorporating distributed expertise. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 292–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huberman, B. A. (2001). The dynamics of organizational learning. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 7, 145–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilgen, D., Hollenbeck, J., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMIO models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. E., May, K. E., & Whitney, K. (1995). Understanding the diversity of dynamics in decision making teams. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 204–261). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, A. A., Argote, L., & Levine, J. M. (2005). Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowledge quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96(1), 56–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681–706.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity on communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 81–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N. L., MacCoun, R. J., & Kramer, G. P. (1996). Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 687–719.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, P. H. (1997). When what you know can hurt you: A study of experiential effects on group discussion and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 165–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20, 403–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kush, J., Williamson, C. D., & Argote, L. (2012). Challenges and opportunities for group learning and group learning researchers. In E. A. Mannix & M. A. Neale (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams: Looking back and moving forward (Vol. 15). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, J. R., Jr., & Christensen, C. (1993). Groups as problem-solving units: Toward a new meaning of social cognition. The British Psychological Society, 32, 5–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, J. R., Jr., Christensen, C., Abbott, A. S., & Franz, T. M. (1996). Diagnosing groups: Charting the flow of information in medical decision-making teams. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 315–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, J. R., Foster-Fishman, P. G., & Keys, C. B. (1994). The discussion of shared and unshared information in decision making groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 446–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822–832.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laughlin, P. R. (1988). Collective induction: Group performance, social combination processes, and mutual majority and minority influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 254–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laughlin, P. R., & Adamopoulos, J. (1980). Social combination processes and individual learning for six-person cooperative groups on an intellective task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 941–947.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laughlin, P. R., & Ellis, A. L. (1986). Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 177–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laughlin, P. R., & Futoran, G. C. (1985). Collective induction: Social combination and sequential transition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 608–613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laughlin, P. R., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1995). A theory of collective induction. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61, 94–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laughlin, P. R., & Shippy, T. A. (1983). Collective induction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 94–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1991). Culture and socialization in work groups. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 257–279). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, J. M., Saxe, L., & Harris, H. J. (1976). Reaction to opinion deviance: Impact of deviate’s direction and distance of movement. Sociometry, 39, 97–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, J. M., & Thompson, L. (1996). Conflict in groups. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 745–776). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang, D. W., Moreland, R., & Argote, L. (1995). Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 384–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libby, R., Trotman, K. T., & Zimmer, I. (1987). Member variation, recognition of expertise, and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 81–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lightle, J. P., Kagel, J. H., & Arkes, H. R. (2009). Information exchange in group decision making: The hidden profile problem reconsidered. Management Science, 55, 568–581.

    Google Scholar 

  • Littlepage, G., Robison, W., & Reddington, K. (1997). Effects of task experience and group experience on group performance, member ability, and recognition of expertise. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 133–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorge, I., & Solomon, H. (1955). Two model of group behavior in the solution of eureka-type problems. Psychometrika, 20, 139–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new product teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 779–793.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu, L., Yuan, Y. C., & McLeod, P. L. (2012). Twenty-five years of hidden profiles in group decision making: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1), 54–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier, N. R. F. (1967). Assets and liabilities in group problem solving: The need for an integrative function. Psychological Review, 74, 239–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mannix, E. A., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6, 31–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (2008). Majority versus minority influence, message processing and attitude change: The source-context-elaboration model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 237–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miner, F. C. (1984). Group versus individual decision making: An investigation of performance measures, decision strategies, and process losses/gains. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 112–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1997). The impact of organizational memory on new product ­performance and creativity. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 91–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreland, R. L. (1999). Transactive memory: Learning who knows what in work groups and organizations. In L. Thompson, D. M. Messick, & J. M. Levine (Eds.), Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreland, R. L., Argote, L., & Krishnan, R. (1998). Training people to work in groups. In R. S. Tindale, L. Heath, J. Edwards, E. J. Posvac, F. B. Bryant, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, E. Henderson-King, & J. Myers (Eds.), Applications of theory and research on groups to social issues (pp. 37–60). New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1992). The composition of small groups. Advances in Group Processes, 9, 237–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscovici, S., Lage, E., & Naffrechoux, M. (1969). Influence of a consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a color perception task. Sociometry, 32, 365–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mugny, G. (1982). The power of minorities. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 3–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murnighan, J. K., & Conlon, D. (1991). The dynamics of intense work groups: A study of British string quartets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 165–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 602–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C. J. (1992). Minority dissent as a stimulant to group performance. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Group process and productivity (pp. 95–111). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C. J., & Kwan, J. L. (1987). Minority influence, divergent thinking and detection of correct solutions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 786–797.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C. J., & Wachtler, J. (1983). Creative problem solving as a result of majority and minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 45–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 96–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olivera, F., & Argote, L. (1999). Organizational learning and new product development: CORE processes. In L. Thompson, D. M. Messick, & J. M. Levine (Eds.), Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ophir, R., Ingram, P., & Argote, L. (1998, October). The impact of demographic composition on organizational learning: An empirical investigation. Paper presented at the INFORMS National Fall Conference, Seattle, WA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination (2nd ed.). New York: Scribner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owens, D., & Neale, M. (1998, June). The dubious benefit of group heterogeneity in highly uncertain tasks: Too much of a good thing? Paper presented at Carnegie-Wisconsin Conference on Knowledge Transfer and Levels of Learning, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, P. B., & Coskun, H. (in press). Group creativity. In J. M. Levine (Ed.), Group processes. New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, P. B., & Dzindolet, M. T. (1993). Social influence processes in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 575–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 76–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrod, S., & Hastie, R. (1979). Models of jury decision making: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 462–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrod, S., & Hastie, R. (1980). A computer simulation of jury decision making. Psychological Review, 87, 133–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, K., & Loyd, D. (2006). When surface and deep-level diversity collide: The effects on dissenting group members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(2), 143–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, K., Mannix, E. A., Neale, M., & Gruenfeld, D. (2004). Diverse groups and information sharing: The effects of congruent ties. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 497–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reagan-Cirincione, P. (1994). Improving the accuracy of group judgment: A process intervention combining group facilitation, social judgment analysis, and information technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 246–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, L. (1986). That’s easy for you to say. Inc, 8(6), 63–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandelands, L. E., & Stablein, R. (1987). The concept of organization mind. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 5, 135–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shure, G. H., Rogers, M. S., Larsen, I. M., & Tassone, J. (1962). Group planning and task effectiveness. Sociometry, 25, 263–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. M., Tindale, R. S., & Dugoni, B. L. (1996). Minority and majority influence on freely interacting groups: Qualitative versus quantitative differences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 137–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stasser, G. (1988). Computer simulation as a research tool: The DISCUSS model of group decision making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 393–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stasser, G., & Stewart, D. D. (1992). The discovery of hidden profiles by decision making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 426–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stasser, G., Stewart, D., & Wittenbaum, G. M. (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 244–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stasser, G., Taylor, L. A., & Hanna, C. (1989). Information sampling in structured and unstructured discussion of three and six person groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 67–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467–1478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1987). Effects of information load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination of unshared information during group discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 81–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stasser, G., Vaughn, S. I., & Stewart, D. D. (2000). Pooling unshared information: The benefits of knowing how access to information is distributed among group members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 102–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, F. F. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, T. A. (1995a, October 30). Mapping corporate brainpower. Fortune, pp. 209–201, 212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, T. A. (1995b, November 27). Getting real about brainpower. Fortune, pp. 201–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, D. D., & Stasser, G. (1995). Expert role assignment and information sampling during collective recall and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 619–628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroebe, W., & Diehl, M. (1994). Why groups are less effective than their members: On productivity loss in idea generating groups. European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 271–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, R. I., & Hargadon, A. (1996). Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 685–718.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas-Hunt, M. C., Ogden, T. Y., & Neale, M. A. (2003). Who’s really sharing? Effects of social and expert status on knowledge exchange within groups. Management Science, 49(4), 464–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tindale, R. S. (1993). Decision errors made by individuals and groups. In N. Castellan Jr. (Ed.), Individual and group decision making: Current issues (pp. 109–124). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, M. E., Pratkanis, A. R., Probasco, P., & Leve, C. (1992). Threat, cohesion, and group effectiveness: Testing a social identity maintenance perspective on groupthink. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 781–796.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. P. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelson, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 590–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegner, D. M. (1986). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–205). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weldon, M. S., & Bellinger, K. D. (1997). Collective memory: Collaborative and individual processes in remembering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 23, 1160–1175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. M., Goodman, P. S., & Cronin, M. A. (2007). Group learning. The Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1041–1059.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittenbaum, G. M. (1996). Information sampling in mixed-sex decision-making groups: The impact of diffuse status and task-relevant cues (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Miami University, Oxford, OH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittenbaum, G. M., & Bowman, J. M. (2004). A social validation model for mutual enhancement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 169–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittenbaum, G. M., Hollingshead, A. B., & Botero, I. C. (2004). From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: Moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm. Communication Monographs, 71(3), 286–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittenbaum, G. M., & Stasser, G. (1996). Management of information in small groups. In J. L. Nye & A. M. Brower (Eds.), What’s social about social cognition? Research on socially shared cognition in small groups (pp. 3–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, W., Lundgren, S., Ouellette, J. A., Busceme, S., & Blackstone, T. (1994). Minority influence: A meta-analytic review of social influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 323–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wysocki, B., Jr. (1997, October 6). Why an acquisition? Often it’s the people. The Wall Street Journal, p. A1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yetton, P. W., & Bottger, P. C. (1982). Individual versus group problem solving: An empirical test of a best-member strategy. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29, 307–321.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, Schenley Park, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

    Linda Argote

Authors
  1. Linda Argote
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Argote, L. (2013). Micro Foundation of Organizational Learning: Group Learning. In: Organizational Learning. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5251-5_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation